44 

2 C8 
py 1 







.1 



MURDER OF CAROLINE H. CUTTER 



BY THE 



B^ptii^t i1Iim§tcrs and 15apti!§t €hiBrche!!». 



Much has been said relative to the controversy which took 
, \'ice in the Baptist churches in Nashua, in 1838. I purpose 
now to communicate some of the leading facts connected with 
the origin and progress of that unhappy affair. In the spring of 
1836, Rev. D. D. Pratt, originated the plan, in connection vvith 
Geo. W. Wilson, of building a 2d Baptist meeting house. Mr. 
Pratt commenced sounding the male members of his church. — 
He visited them in person, persuaded most of them to subscribo 
for stock in the house. He did the same to the female members 
of his church who worked in the factory. For the truth of the 
above statement, I refer to Moses Gould, Lorenzo Dow, John 
Howe and others. Mr. Pratt laid the matter before his church. 
The action of the church to sustain the scheme was put on the 
church records by Pratt himself. Mr. Pratt was the committee 
to get the act of incorporation. Mr. Pratt was on the commit- 
tee to draft the Bye Laws. The records of the incorporation 
show the last statement to be true. Before the meeting house 
was erected Mr. Pratt commenced speculating in the meeting 
house stock. This he did by buying stock at a discount of Cyrus 
S. Barnes then a metnber of his church . (1) Both before and af- 
ter this purchase of Barnes, Mr. Pratt persuaded girls in the fac- 
tory to buy stock at the full price. The following persons, with 
others, sul>scribed for stock in the meeting house and did not pay 
for their stork when the money was called for, to wit: Dea . Ed- 
win Chase, Dea. D. W. Jones, Dea. Albert Adams, Dea. Caleb 
Gage, Joel Bi'own, and many others. (2) Th^ir delinquencies 
amounted to iriore than two thousand dollars. To meet this de- 
linquency Pratt persuaded me to hire money of sundry persons 
to relieve the brethren. This I did under a specified agreement 
as to time and conditions. I gave my own note to Wm. Wal- 
lace of Milford and others for this money. In this I was obey- 
ing the Scripture, " bear ye one another's burilens." My en- 
gagements to Pratt and the Baptist society I have fulfilled to tho 
letter and spirit. I defy any one to show to the contrary . While 
I was relieving the brethren by giving my name for money, Pratt 
and Wilson were engaged in s|)eculaiing out of poor members 
of Pratt's church. Pratt has staled many limes that he had 
1 



*•. 



■§ J'y"^^ 



MTf 



2 



nothing to do with the building of the second Baptist house. — 
This statement of Pratt's is untrue. I can show this statement 
to be false by the records above mentioned, and individuals nam- 
ed. Thus the house was finished. At the 'expiration of one 
year, the money hired, for which I had given my note, was call- 
ed for. Wm. Wallace, after a delay of some months, left his 
note with Abbot & Fox for immediate collection, and notified me 
by letter of this determination. I applied to«Pratt and other 
members who were engaged in getting the money with me to 
see it paid according to agreement. I negociated with them 
from January until June. Although I had given some hundred 
dollars in this concern, I offered to give two hundred and fifty 
dollars more, and pay the Jebt of the society. I offered to lend 
my name with their names to hire the money fop the society. I 
proposed to see the remainder cancelled if they would assume 
the Milford liability of $450. I offered to refer this matter to a 
committee of Baptist ministers. (3) With neither of the above 
named propositions would they comply. Mr. Pratt, Wilson, and 
Brown told me in a christian manner that I had got into a scrape 
and must take care of myself. They told me if I exposed them, 
they would destroy my character and business. Having on me 
the liabilities of the society and members of the church, to the 
amount of nearly two thousand dollars, I was convinced that 
what little I had earned would be stripped from me. I resolved 
to separate myself from these speculators and extortioners in the 
church and then take care of myself alone, according to Pratt's 
advice. June 14, I went into church meeting and asked them to 
erase my name from the church book. (4) I do not know that 
any one had any complaint against me in the church. Pratt 
and church chose a committee to labor with me. They chose 
Edwin Chase. Caleb Gage, Albert Adams, Joseph Couch and 
Stephen Whipple for this purpose. The three first named had 
not fulfilled their engagements which caused the whole trouble. 
They waited upon me the next day. I stated to them my com- 
plaint was their not paying for their meeting house stock and 
getting it saddled upon me. I told them that if they and others 
would pay their debts the trouble would end. (.5) This they 
refused to report to the church. They then added .loel Bcown, 
another member who had not paid for his subscribed stock and 
Chase Noyes. My story to the second committee was the same 
as before. This they refused to report to the church, simply be- 
cause, as Dea. Chase said, it would criminate the committee. — 
In church meeting, on June 21, Lorenzo Dow asked the Com- 
mittee to state to the church my reasons. These they refused to 
give. I then asked permission to state them myself. This re- 
quest was put down by Pratt and not by the action of the 
church. Pratt told me " I had no right to answer Dow's inqui- 
ries," thereby criminating him and the committee. (C) What I 
wished to communicate, was, the above mentioned facts. Find- 
ing they were determined to destroy my character and not let 



3 

me go with thnt single boon remaining, I withdrew my request 
to have my name erased resolving to abide a trial. (7) Or« July 
26, the standing committee of the church visited me, consisting 
of Adams, Gage, Chase, and Howard. I refused to receive them 
and converse with them as a church committee — told them to 
carry any charges before the churfli and 1 would there answer 
them. The committee told me 1 should not speak before the 
church. (8) The committee presented charges to the church 
that evening. I appeared and asked the privilege of making my 
defence. The church voteil that I should not ask even one ques- 
tion. (9) So they condemned and excommunicated me without 
a hearing. And why ? to conceal their own criminality. So 
said Pratt and his committee. This is my version of the matter. 
I will now give Pratt's from his church records and sworn affi- 
davit. 

I, D. D. Pratt, of lawful age, depose, and say that I am now 
the Pastor and Clerk of the First Baptist church in Nashua, and 
have been six or seven years last past, f have kept the records 
of said church. " He (Calvin Cutter) was first receivetl as a 
member of our church, Feb. 28, 1835, and was dismissed Nov. 
6, 18S6, for the pupose of becoming a member o^the second 
church in said Nashua then about to be formed. So far as I 
knew he was considered in fair sianJing during that time. He 
was a member of the 2d Baptist church until he was received 
back by us as appears by my records. March 30, 1838, he 
brought a letter of dismission from the 2d church." "The next 
procee(iing in the church in relation to Dr. Cutter was had June 
14, 1838. A committee was chosen to converse with him, con- 
sisting of Edwin Chase, Stephen Whipple, Albert Adams, Ca!e!» 
Gage, and Joseph Couch. The object of the appointn^ent of 
this committee, as appears by the records, was * to visit and con- 
verse with him and labor to convince him of the impropriety and 
unreasonableness of the request,' which was to withdraw from 
the church. [10] It appears by the records that he (Cutter) re- 
quested to withdraw:" he wished to accomplish his purpose 
which he had determined on several months before. [11] The 
committee reporl^d Juf.e 15, 1838, that they had a long conver- 
sation with Dr. Cutt#; they found little or no change in his 
mind or purf)oses ; he would, J|«vvever, keep back his request 
one week to see if the church ▼ould take such a course as to 
meet his view. [12] Voted that .^|pl Brown and Chase Noyes 
be added to the committee and that they be re(iuested to labor 
faithfully and kindly with him and report at the next meeting. — 
The next nieeting was June 21, 1838. The record of yie last 
meeting was read and approved. The committee appoi|J^.I to 
labor with Dr. Cutter reported that his mind and purpose seemed 
lo remain about the same — he did not know but that he could walk 
with the church, if he could somehow be relieved from the pecu-^ 
niarij obligations he had entered into in behalf of the second Bap- 
tist church. [IS] The committee stated that his comi)laint against 



nay society, or even against individual members of the church, 
they endeavored to make him feel were no valid reasons for 
breaking away from the church of Christ as such. Voted to ac- 
cept the report of the committee. On the question whether the 
committee should continue Hieir labor with him or not, it was 
voted to let the matter rest for a little time to see what course he 
would pursue with the hope that he would change his feelings 
and purposes. After this he [Cutter] requested an opportunity 
to make a statement to the church at this meeting or some oiher. 
The church told him that it would be out of order for hi\n to 
make a statement criminating persons, as he said he intended to 
do, before visiting them in the manner laid down in the 18th 
chap, of Matt. [14] This he was not dis[)osed to do. The 
church thought to give him leave to make such a statement, 
would be to give hitn leave to violate the laws of Christ. While 
the question was pending several bretliren asked him some ques- 
tions, upon which he finally concluded to withdraw his request 
for dropping his name [15] as unscriptural and improper. A 
very kind state of feeling seemed to pervade the meeting on the 
part of the church. The meeting adjourned with prayer by the 
Pastor. * 

The records of the next proi'.eeding are July 26, 1838. At a 
full meeting of the church this evening held at the vestry for 
l)usiness, the standing committee introduced the followmg report, 




d)y giving his influence agf 
church, the committee felt it their duty to visit him which they 
did last evening, ami ask leave lo tnake the following report. — 
He was asked why h3 left the connnunion of the church. To 
this we could get no definite reply. He a4so stated he should 
not feel himself under obligations to make answers to the com- 
mittee, [16] l)ut treated us with contempt, manifesting- much 
hardness of feeling, not only towards ourselves, but towards 
souje other members of the church. Conversation has been had 
with him by individuals of the committ^ and others in which 
he has said his intentions were jiot hastily made, but that nearly 
six months ago he detertninedW^ come back to the first church 
atid if they did not compl^gjuith his wishes in every respect, to 
bring them to their senses, ^?he exjjressed it. He did not deny 
having declared that ho shouhJ pursue such a course as wouMJ 
})rove the overthrow of both chur* hes. We laliored to show 
hini^^ extreme folly and heinousuess of thus endeavoring to 
traii^e upon the church and the cause of Christ and that if he 
had anything againsl individuals he should pursue tho gospel 
rule and not violate his covenant with the church. It is with 
regret we are compelled to any we could get no saiisfaciion, nor 
perceive any other spii^i than that of schism, opposition and de- 
termined obstinacy. [Signed, E. Chas&, A. Adams, C. Gage, 



amIE. Howard.] On motion, the above report was accented 
whde the church had considered the matter. It was then asked 
by the pastor and others whether any one de^lredthrcommk 
eeorany other to h.bor further with Calvin Cutter. No one 
oTchZ' r'n ^ '^^»^«;•«" being made to withdraw the h^ d 

Jjom the church, [17] the vole was taken in the usual way 
and decided m the affirmative with one dissenting, vo e The 
church appointed brother Chase Noyes, and Stephen Whimde 
communicate to the person the doin^^ of the church The 

of mind'rr'r/" 'n I" " t"''"' '"•^^^'•'"'' ""'^^'^ ^-» «'•'" ^'-''"e 

.nr rL ^^^^"^^ ^'u^'"'' '^'''''^ '" b^ '-^ member froin this time, 
and there ,. no further record of church proceeding's in relat"m 
to h.m.-TA.r. zsno other church record than i^hal hasb 




y.^dtZn^^T'' ^y '^" ''''' '^^ ^^"''^h that'told me it 
sonf nn r ^^ ''• '^"' '? ;"^^'^ ^"^ Matement criminatin-r per- 
feon.^, on the evening of June 21, 1838." Ans. " Sever.-Tl ex- 
pressed such an opinion, I had no objection, and I, as moderator 
communicated it to the Doctor." [20] "ueraioi, 

The above is the verbatim testimony of D. D. Pratt si^n^d 
by him and sworn to before Isaac Spauldin?, Nov. 20 1838 

end points"^ '''''"^''''^ '"^ "^""^^'"^"^ '^'^^ ^''^ testimony in'sev- 

[1] I have the ^^bscription book for stock, where the name of 

i^M^e^ri^irsrhaTer "".^""''"'"" " inserted, written by 

[Vi '?-t'^''""^ ^°''^ contains the names of these gentlemen. 
L^J [i)J Compare my statement with the church record. [12] 

[4] Compare with Pratt's records, see [16] 

[6] Compare this my statement with Pratt's records, see [141 

[7] t^ompare tnis withdrawal of my request with Pratt's state- 
ment. [15j Mark at the close of the church meeting Jan oi 
show ''^ '"^'"^'^'' °^ ^^'^ church unimpeached as Pratt"s records 

[8] Ir. keepin^T with the evenin<r's work. 

[9] Compare this with Pratt's testimony, see [19] 

[18] Compare this statement of Pratt's with [19 1 Here anv 
one can see that Pratt made false recor.ls by omirting to record 
the vote of the church .lepriving me of a hearin-. Will any 
one say this vote was not important. 

[20] Coniparing Pratt's answer to my questio.) with his church 
record, see [14,] any one can see that Pratt made false church 



records by recording the remarks of individuals as the acts of 
the church. Did not Pratt do this for the purpose of slander? 
This 1 assert to be the case. He showed these false records to 
persons as the true records of all the real acts of the church. — 
Here is rny evidence of this assertion. Pratt thus testifies on 
this point—" In some instances; (the church records of Dr. Cut- 
ter's case,") at the request of clergymen or other individual mem- 
bers of sister churches, they have been read." On this point, 
the Rev. M. Carpenter thus testifies, to wit: " Rev. D. D. Pratt, 
then pastoi'of a Baptist church in Nashua, at my request exhib- 
ited to me the records of the church in relation to the dealings of 
the church with Dr. Calvin Cutter, who had been a member." 
"I did not understand that any vote was passed by the church 
which was not recorded." Here is one fact clearly proved by 
the testimony of Pratt and Carpenter, to wit:— Pratt kept false 
records of his church doings; then showed these records, know- 
ing them to be false, to bolster up his reputation and that of his 
church, by slandering me in thus exhibiting his church records 
as a true transcript of the doings of his church. 

Let us look at the case of Benoni Cutter. He united with D. 
D. Pratt'? church in the summer of 18S7, and had a class in the 
Sabbath school. In October he gave up his class to Wm. Long- 
dell, (now dead,) and went to Boston to attend medical lectures. 
He continued at Boston and Woodstock, Vt. until June, 1838, 
when he returned to Nashua. This was well known to Mr. 
Pratt. Soon my brother visited the Rev. Mr. Pratt and other 
members of the'church, and commenced a labor with them for 
sj)eculating, lying, cheating, and plainly told them he would ex- 
pose their wickedness. Abouj 11 o'clock, July 26, 1838, the 
standing committee visited hitn for the firsUtime, and he was 
excluded in the evening of the same day. •Here is the sworn 
testimony of Mr. Pratt relative to B.enoni Cutter. Question by 
C. Cutter: " Had the church any proceeding with Benoni Cut- 
ter prior to this lime, July 26, or at this time .^" Ans. by Pratt: 
The pastor and members of the committee had conversed with 
him relative to his spirit and walk. Ques. Did the standing 
committee make a rei)ort on the case of Benoni Cutter, July 26, 
1838 ? Ans. They did. Ques. Was any report made relative 
to Benoni Cutter prior to that time } Ans. There had been 
some talk, but no formal report. Ques. Had any individual pre- 
vious te this announced to the church that they had any labor 
with him? Ans. I think there had— the pastor suggested that 
he had some conversation with him, he having withdrawn from 
the communion and Sabbath school, or rather taken himself off*. 
(1) I am not able to say whether he was there or had been for 
several months connected with the Sabbath school. (2) I think 
he did not attend. He had been absent for a tinie and had been 
back, but how long I do not know. (3) I think the subject was 
brought up in church meeting. It was mentioned by the pastor 
among other things. 1 reported him to the church as an indi- 



vidual under censure.(4) It was suggested that the standing 
commitlee ought to visit him and exercise their duty relative to 
him " " There is nothing on the records prior to the evening ot 
July 26, against Benoni Cutter.(5) The committee made a re- 
port on that evening about Benoni Cutter, in writing. I should 
not think the church withdrew the hand of fellowship from h.ra 
on the strength of that report. It was for having withdrawn 
from the church. Quite a number said they had not seen him 
at the communion, and not having seen him there, supposed h.m 
to be absent. They gave it as their opinion that he had with- 
drawn from the church. They were pretty well satisfied he had. 
(6) Ques. Was Benoni Cutler invited to show cause why he 
should not be expelled on the charges against him? Ans. 1 de- 
cline answering. ^, ,, 

(1) Here note the charge of Pratt. Not attending commu- 

ni»>n or S. School. « . . , . » i 

(2) Here Pratt says he does not know of his being connected 
with the school for several months. rpi,. p^„,t 

(3) Here he testifies Benoni had been absent, ihis fratt 
shows he knew, yet he makes this a cause of censure. 

(A^ Here Pratt shows he was the complainant unequivocally. 

(5) Here Pratt testifies that there is no charge recorded on the 
records against Benoni Cutter. 

(6) Reader, look at the testimony of Pratt in the case of Ben- 
oni Cutter. Does it not bear the impress of a conspiracy to get 
rid of Benoni Cutter, to save themselves. Examine the whole 
testimony of Pratt, and say if it does not bear the impress of 
veriurv. Did Pratt enter a complaint against Benoni Cuiter tor 
not attending communion without knowing ^^l^^^^^er he was in 
town at the time of his absence from communion? Did Pra^t 
einer a complaint and not record it? No P^^" "ever c^^^^" 
plained to the church, and hence no record. Probably he con- 
certed the whole with his committee. Chase, Gage, and Adams. 

Further to illustrate the conduct of D. D. Pratt and the church, 
I will take up the case of Lorenzo Dow. Dow had been con- 
nected with Pratt's church some years and was regarded as a 
; [iabirc^mber. He paid one hundred dollars towards^ the 
second Baptist house. Since he was excommunicated, Mr. Pra^t 
stated to the Rev. S. Curtis, that Dow's character was "^t m- 
peached. The report of the standing committee of the F^st 
Bantist church, of July 26, contains the following: "He (Ur. 
Cu ter ) dUl no't deny having said that he should pursue such a 
course as would prove the destruction and over hrow of both 
churches " When the report of July 26 was put into my hands 
bv Chase Noyes, on July 30, I told Noyes it was false I asked 
ny brother, Benoni Cutter, to visit each member of the comrmt- 
Tee, question them upon this point, and write their answers down 
verbatim. 



8 

BENONI CUTTER'S SFPIDJIVIT. 

tirrpl"n?rr.?"^'"" held with the following persons at different 
tunes, the followjntr questions were asked, answers ^iven, and 
statements made, viz.-On July 30, asked Caleb Cage if he knew 
who the person was to whom Calvin Cutler had declared that he 
would take such a course as would destroy both of the Baptist 

that h^'h • H "' r^''''f '''''' ^' ^''^ "«^ ^^"^^^ ^^ho the person ^vvas 
I at he had made such a statement to. Asked him whether Cal- 
nnlnf if* "? havmg n.ade such a statement when asked by 

I^^.'rr. Iph r'"''\'"'' r^','^^ 1st Baptist church appointed to visit^ 
He (Caleb Gage) replied that Calvin Cutter denied having made 

Z(cSTc']l '\ ^'^V^'T"' ^'^^ "*^^" ^^'^'^ "^y Alberl Idams! 
aV i l^ Cutter) replied, «' it was false." . 

vin Sm.f hfJ''^ ^^^^'V^ ^l^'^r '"^« '^^ ^^'^^'^ ^^«« that Cal- 
yin Cuttei had declared to that he would pursue such a course as 
would destroy both of the Baptist churches. He replied he did 
not knovv to whom he had made such a statement 4sked h „ 
whether Calvin Cutter had denied having made suh a statene 
to him when he Edwin Chase) asked him if he had made S 
a statement, at the time when the committee of the s BapUst 
church appointed for that purpose, visited him. He (&« 

n «i ''.^'^'^'^"t- Stated that he had always denied havin^ 
made such a statement to him. "civin^ 

C,nlp?hn:i /'!'^'^ ^u^^'^ ^^^^™" '^ h^ ^^"^^^ to whom Calvin 
Cuttei had declared he would take such a course as would de- 
stroy one or both of the Baptist churches. He replied that he 
t''lul'\ ^^^^^ ^''" ^^fa^theV Calvin Cutter denied havmg 1^^^^ 

1st B.n uf "h"'' r'^'" ".^^^^ ^y ^"^ «^ the committee^of the 
1st Baptist chiirch appointed to visit him. He replied after 
some equivocation, that he believed he denied it in 2' ' 
vin ^^^i.^^i''" ^"tter ask Ebenezer Howard whether he (Cal- 
onl?.T ^ '^?/',^ ^^^'"^ ^^^^'^'•^d that he would pursue si ch a 
e^bv Afbm Ai,''''?.^*^ '^ '^.' Bapti.tchurch'es, when ask' 
fl?. i^ . « ?"'^'*^ ^^^ time when the standing committee of 

outlv o dint' I "''h ^"" ^"'^ '') ^'«^^^d h''"' '^ h^ had previ- 
accede^o It r.M? i ^^ -^^^''"^ '^''' ^^ (^''^'^•^" ^^utter) did not 
accede to it, but denied it. BENONI CUTTER. 

State of New Hampshire, Hillsborough ss, ? 
'PI u ^^^^"3' A"?- 3, I8S8. \ 

r».n^ . u ^^^'^■^^^'J Benoni Cutter personally appeared and 

nisueiiet tiue. Before me, Charles J. Fox, 

Justice of the Peace. 

nn^i'^klVrtl^'^Tl' '"'"'^''* ^^the committee individually, 

Cu te. U >on tlii^ !P. T'^' '!"' "^^"^^ statements to Benon 
^uitei. Upon this point I give the certificate of Dow. 



New Boston, Auir. 29, 1841. 
This may ceriify that I, Lorenzo Dow, was a rneinher of ihe 
1st Baptist church in Nashua, on July 26, 1839, and that I jlid 
complain of the standing committee of snid church, to wit, Al- 
bert Adams, Edwin Chase, Caleb Ga«re, arxl Ebenezer Howard, 
for making an untrue report to said church in ihe case of Calvin 
Cutler. This I did in open church meeting after having visited 
each member of the committee, some of whom confessed to me 
that the report contained what was not true, and admitted that 
they confessed the sait)e to Benoni Cutter, to which he, Benoni 
Cutter, made oath. The church voted not to investigate any 
complaijit against said committee, but voted to exclude me from 
the church the same evening for not attending meeting and com- 
munion when I was absent from town, visiting my brother, they 
knowing such to be the fact. I think the above to be true. 

Lorenzo Dow. 

I ask tlie community to examine this transaction. The com- 
mittee make a false report, and get me excluded on that re])ort. 
They then admit the leport to be false, atid are complained of 
to the church for makmg said report. The church, umier Pratt's 
guidance, vote to screen the committee, and to make the situa- 
liot) of Pratt and committee secure, exclude the complainant 
Dow. This was done to prevent an investigation into the before 
described lying, speculating, and swindling. Yet Pratt and the 
churt-h are fellowshipped and protected by the Baptist ministers 
and churches. 

At the close of ihe statement of my casa I showed Pratt kept 
false recor<ls. L*i this case his reconls are made falsely in all 
probability. Most likely he has not recorded the complaint of 
Dow against the standing church commiltee for lying, and the 
vote of the church not to investigate the matter. Either his re- 
cords are false, or they show the action of the church to sustain 
their committee in making false reports. Let the candid and 
truth loving exj'.mine the al)ove transaction. 

Pratt desired to get rid of Nathaniel Sleeper and family, and to 
effect this he made letters of dismission, as the following will 
show, to wit : 

This certifies that the Rev. D.D.Pratt, on the afternoon of 
Nov. 1, 1838, made out ledgers of dismission for members of his 
church, which letters they refused taking, having never asked 
said letters of the church or Pratt. We, the undersigned, were 
the above natned njembers. J. E. SLEEPEPt, 

M. E. SLEEPER, 
S. J. SLEEPER. 

He then abused thein by using vile and indecent language, and 
then put them under chun-h censure, antl excommunicated them 
at the same titne and way with Mrs. Cutter, and for the same 
charges, without a single particle of investigation. 



10 

I now take up ihe case of Mrs. Cutter. On the evening of 

Sept. 28, 1838, she obtained perniissioti by the unanimous vole 
of the church then convened to present a communication to the 
church. It was read by Deacon Albert Adams. After reading 
it, he (Adams) declared publicly, in the same church meeting, 
that every statement was a falsehood. In this Adams was sus- 
tained by Mr. Pratt. I give the following testimony to sustain 
this charge. 

This certifies that I attended the meeting of the 1st Baptist 
church in Nashua on the evening of Sept. 28, 1838. Mrs. C. H. 
Cutler atteinled and asked permission to present a communica- 
tion to the church. This was granted by a unanimous vole. 
Then Mrs. Cutter's communication was read by Deacon Albert 
Adams. After reading the same, he (Adan)s) declared all the 
statements in it to be a falsehood from l)eginning to enil. Rev. 
D. D. Pratt said of the communication, he would not say a word 
of it was true for all the stars in the firmamenr, no, not for my 
right hand. This 1 wrote down at the lime, being present, 

MARY E. SLEEPER. 

Hillisborough ss. Sept. 2, 1841. 

Then personally appeared the above named MaryE. Sleep- 
er, and made oath that the above statement by her subscribed, is 
true. Before me, Daniel, Abbot, Justice of the Peace. 

1, Nathan'el Sleeper, certify that I have read the above state- 
ment signed by my daughter, Mary E. Sleeper. I further certify 
that I was present at the meeting referred to, and that the facts 
therein slated by the* said Mary are true. 

NATHANIEL SLEEPER. 

Hillsborough ss. Sept 2, 1841. 

Then the before mentioned Nathaniel Sleeper personally 
appeared and made oath that the foregoing certificaie by him 
signed is true. 

Before me, Daniel Abbot, .Justice of the Peace. 

After being thus publicly charged with falsehood, Mrs. Cutter 
presented the following request. 

• Nashua, Oct. 10, 1838. 
To the first Baptist church in Nashua. In consequence of my 
being charge(i in church meeting of rnaking false statements on 
the 23di ult. I desire the church to enter into and pursue a candid 
and impartial examination of the matter. 

4 Yours, &c. C. H. Cutter. 

The church voted to indefinitely postpone this requested inves- 
tigation. This assertion I sustain by the following from the 
Bworn affidavit of D. D. Pratt, to wit. " The coimnunicalion 
written by Mrs. Cutter, and read at a church meeting in Sept. 



11 

1838, is not in my possession. The subject to which the paper 
related was indefinitely postponed by the church.'^ Mrs. Cutter 
was made sick by the above brutal conduct, and apparently 
brought near the grave, by treatment worse than murder by the 
cold steel. When she recovered, she scorned to remain in con- 
nection with, or receive a recommendation from, a minister and 
church who would set ad nought the ninth commandment, "Thou 
shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." She sent the 
following note to the church. 

Nashua, Nov. 1, 1838. 
To the 1st Baptist church in Nashua: — Whereas certain state- 
ments made by me in church meeting, on the eve of Sept. 2S, 
were declared to be false by brethren then present, and whereaa 
my request to the church for an investigation of the same, has 
been disregarded, and whereas it is contrary to the rules of the 
church, which I do not wish violated, to dismiss a mernber with- 
out recommending him or her to some other church, therefore I 
solemnly and sincerely request you to excommunicate me from 
your body. C. H. Cutter. 

The following was the action of the church on the above. 

To Mrs. C. H. Cutter:— 

Dear sister, 1 am instructed by the first Ba|f!ist church, to 
inform you of a vote of the church which passed unanidiously 
in relation to you, on the 27th day of Nov. in consequence of 
your having withdrawn from the church and neglected the ordi- 
nances of the gospel. The vole was as follows, viz. that you 
havmg violated your covenant obligations to the church, are 
therefore under the censure of the church and suspended from 
church privileges until yon return and evince your sorrow by a 
humble confession. Yours truly, Chase Noyes. 

Nashua, Dec. 3, 1838. 

Mrs. Cutter left Nashua, and took no notice of them or their 
church labors. After she removed to Dover, they sent the fol- 
lowing to her. 

Nashua, April 24, 1839. 
Mrs. Caroline H. Cutter — At a full meeting of the first Baptist 
church this evening, held at the vestry, it was voted unanimously 
to withdraw the hand o^ fellowship from you, for having with- 
ilrawn from the church. 

Per order, John C. Hildreth, Committee to inform. 

Now look at the above transaction. Mrs. Cutter makes cer- 
tam statements in church meeting. Pratt and Adams declare 
such statements to he false. Now it is plain, either JVJr*. Cutter 
liedy or Pratt and ^dams lied. The church voted to keep the 
liars in their body without censure by indefinitely postponing the 
matter. To render the liars secure they gag Mrs. Cutter by 



12 

putting her under church censure for '< neglecting the ordinances 
of the gospel," when confined by sickness, caused by the brutal- 
ity of Pratt and Adams in church meeting. To close the drama 
ihey exclude Mrs. Cutter, not for lyi7ig;, but " for having with- 
drawn from the churchy Although Pratt and the church are 
thus gudty, they are protected, fellow shipped, and sustained bv 
all the Baptist mmisters, church members, and churches in New 
Hampshire. 

The Rev. D. D. Pratt, M. Carpenter, Lucien Hayden, E. E 
Cnmmings, Benj. Brieriy, Phineas Richardson, and others have 
said much against my moral character and that of Mrs. Cutter 
1 hey have represented our characters as very bad. They havj 
made many slanderous nods, shakes of the head, winks, and bold 
assertions. 1 say nothing in defence of my moral character or 
that ot Mrs. Cutter. I regret that it is not better. I regret that 
in this controversy I have said and done very many thmt^s that 
are wrong. Still, permit me to introduce the testimony^ mv 
slanderers m favor of the soundness of my moral character 
^u^- P'.^^P'.^°^- ^' ^^^^' ^^^''chSO, 1838. The first Baptist 
church of Nashua, by receiving afid dismissing me without a 
dissenting vote, declared my moral character "to be <^ood ihev 
being judges. June 10, 1838, Mr. Pratt gave me the foll'owini 
certificate: ° 

,,, , . H Nashua, June 10, 1838. 

1 o whom It may concern, 

.... ^ , . The bearer, Dr. Calvin Cutter, has been an 

inhabitant of this place for a number of years last past, and sus- 
tains among our people a good mora! character. 

D. D. PnATT, Pastor of the first Baptist church. 

June 14, 1838, Pratt has recorded that the church labor com- 
menced. July 26, 1838, they exclu.led me unheard, not for im- 
morality but for ''having withdrawn from the church " April 
24, 1839, Mrs. Cutter was cut off not ^r kjing, as Pratt and Ad- 
ams had accused her, but for '^ having ivithdrawn from the 
church.'' Benoni Cutter was cut off July 26, 1838, not for wick- 
edness, but for " having withdrawn from- the church.'' Lorenzo 
JJovy was excluded for '' havi7ig withdrawn from the church:" 
the feleeper family was kicked out for " having withdrawn from 
ihec.mrch;" yet in all these cases and many others, the charjie 
of having ivithdrawn from the church," was an iiitentioital 
Jalsehooa on the part of the first Baptist church in Nashua 
1 hey and the Baptist ministers who fellowship ihe'in know it full 

Some will say this matter ought not to he made public, [t will 
hurt the cause. It will render the church unpopul^jr. It will 
make inhdels. If the foregoing be true, ought the Baptist church 
to be popular.? Will not the ministers and churches to whom 
J have appealed be held accountable at the judgment dny for all 
the evils that accrue to the conununity and individuals from this 



13 

publication? At difTereni times I have made the following pro- 
positions, to wit.— On June 15, 1838, I proposed to the commit- 
tee to refer the whole matter to a committee of Baptist ministers 
chosen by the church. This was refused. On the second day 
of Aug. I proposed to Edwin Chase before witness to refer the 
Avhole matter to a mutual committee com^josed of persons either 
in or out of the church. This was refused. On the 25th of Feb. 
1839, I proposed to Wm. Wallace, Calvin Averill, and Deacon 
Putnatn of Milford, to refer the controversv in all its i)arts to a 
mutual council. This they said was fair. Wm. Wallace agreed 
to transmit my proposition to the Nashua church, and notify me 
of their answer. This agreement Wallace intentionally broke. 
1 then appealed to every church in the Milford Association, for 
an exparte council to examine certain specific charges against 
Pratt and church. The following is the only answer 1 received, 
to wit: 

Milford, March 16, 1838. 
Sir — In answer to a letter from you directed to the Baptist 
church in Milford, bearing date Feb. 28, 1839, the undersigned, 
the pruflentlal committee of the church, after prayer and careful 
ileliberation, would say that they have no authority or right, as a 
church or individuals, to interfere or meddle with the acts or reg- 
ulations of any other church, and you need not longer expect 
any service of this Kind from us. Ebenezer Pearsons, 

Andrew Hutchinson, 
Calvin Averill, 
Geo. Raymond. 

Thus the committee defended Pratt by keeping the Milford 
church ignorant— two of Pratt's relatives being on the commit- 
tee, Geo. Raymond and Calvin Averill. I then called upon the 
Milford Baptist Association— The Portsmouth Association, by 
the hand of Lucien Hayden of Dover — The Baptist State Con- 
vention—for an investigation of this matter. In all these instan- 
ces, no examination has been obtained. I then appealed to the 
Baptist Church in Milford for an investigation of this matter. 
The following is their answer. 

Milford, Dec. 26, 1839. 

Dr. Cutter, Sir— I am directed by the Baptist church in Mil- 
ford, to inform you that we have nothing to do with the Nashua 
church, nor with your difficulty with them, and shall not consent 
to receive any communicatiovi from you on the subject, nor have 
any thing to do with the affair. Wm. Wallace, Ch. Clerk. 

I then applied to the Baptist church in Dover for an exparte 
committee, offering to pay all the expenses of such investigation. 
This was refused. 

I then sent the following to the Baptist church in Nashua, by 
Josephus Baldwin, Esq. — 

"The following proposition I transmit to the first Baptist 
church in Nashua, by Josejdms Baldwin ; 



14 

"Upon an investigation, fair and impartial as the circumstan- 
ces will permit, 1 am ready to make confession of, and make res- 
stitution for all errors, so far as in my power, to individuals and 
the churcli,upon being convinced of my error, by a candid hear- 
ing before fair and disinterested men. Yours, &c. 

"Nashua, July 10,1840. Calvin Cutter. 

*' [f we cannot agree upon fair and impartial men, I will agree 
to mutually select a cojnrnittee vvho shall select a committee to 
act as final umpires." The above was not accepted. 

Sept. 2S, 1840, I applied to the Milford Baptist Association, 
convened at Milford, to bring the controversy before this body. 
Pratt was moderator. He refused to let me state my business, 
but. called for an officer to arrest me anrl carry me out of the 
house. My witnesses were present to sustain my charges against 
him and cliurch. 

Notwithstanding I have made the above mentioned proposi- 
tions, which have been rejected, I now make the following, to 
wit. — I will refer (his controversy in all its parts to a committee 
mutually selected. The parties being bound to abide the decision 
of such committee. If any person or church sees fit to comply 
witli this proposition, and I do not prove to the satisfaction of 
the committee, the diarges, substantially, which I have made 
against the Rev. Mr. Pratt and church, 1 will pay such persons 
all their expenses and time spent in such investigation. I will 
get satisfactory bondsmen to see the fulfilment of this last oflTer. 
If any one l)elieves that Pratt and church are not guilty, let them 
defend him by entering into an investigation, and if such persons 
will not do it, let sucli persons remain silent, whether they be 
ministers, church members, or others. 

In consequence of the peculiar position of Mrs. Cutter, they 
have followed her with unrelenting and malicious persecution, 
destroying her character, her happiness and her life. At her 
Funeral in Milford, the proceedings of the Baptist church in 
relaMon to her together with the charge of having been destroy- 
ed by the action of the Baptist church, were read by the Rev. H. 
Moore, of Milford. The destruction of Mrs. Cutter was found 
to be necessary by the Baptist church, from the fact that her com- 
munication, read in church meeting by Albert Adams, Sep. 23, 
1833, containing the following statements: — an investigation of 
which would have ruined Pratt and the church. 

The statements are as follows: — 

1st. *'That Adams, Chase and others did not pay their meet- 
ing house stock notes when they became due. 

2d. In consequence of such non-payment, money was hired 
of Wm. Wallace and others for which I gave my note. 



15 

Stl. That I was compelled to pay Wallace and others, my 
property being attached by Wallace and by hinj sold. 

4th. That when excommunicated by the church, that I was de- 
prived of a hearing- by vote of the church. 

5th. That the communication of the church committee, con- 
tained false statenjents relative to me. 

Against such proceedings she protested, and demanded an in- 
vestigation of the whole matter, the [)arties being brought face 
to face. The above statements aud positions, Pratt and Adams 
declared to be false, in church meeting — did Mrs. Cutter lie, or 
did Adams and Pratt, is the question ? To the facts. 1st. Pratt 
purchased Adatris' stock twelve months after the note became 
due and then the note was paid by Pratt, notwithstanding the 
Rev. buyer, and selling deacon denied it. This, Pratt has con- 
fessed to Mark Carpenter. 

2d. 3d. The Hillsborough County Records show that wy pro- 
perty was sold by Wallace. The suit being advised by Pi-att. 

4th. Pratt swears upon this matter in these words, to wit : 
"there was a motion made July 26, that he (Cutter) should have 
a hearing and the privilege of making his statement. I put such 
motion — the vote was in the negative." 

5th. Mrs. Cutter's statement is sustained by the testimony of 
Benoni Cutter and Lorenzo Dow. Let the community judge 
upon the 4th and 5th statetnents from the testimony, who is the 
liar, Mrs, Cutter or Pratt and Adams. 

Having briefly stated the leading facts, let us see who are the 
guilty ones and the amount of guilt. 1st. Pratt and Adams 
made the charge of lying, against Mrs. Cutter. For this, at 
the time, they alone were responsible. When upon the appli*- 
cation of Mrs. Cutter for an investigation, the church voted " to 
indefinitely postpone the matter," as Pratt swears they did, — 
they in effect voted to brand Mrs. C. a liar, to destroy herchar- 
acter, her happiness and her life. Every member of that church 
at that time became a participator in the vile deed, the foul murder! 
They collectively and individually, are guilty of all the results 
of thus publicly in church meeting branding Mrs. Cutter an in- 
famous felon. All who have joined them since, as Josephus 
Baldwin, Wm. D. Beasom and wife have endor&ed the same and 
are equally guilty. Some may ask how is this murder, even 
if Mrs. Cutter's life has been destroyed, as alleged. I answer 
as follows ; If Pratt had given Mrs. Cutler arsenic to accom})lish 
his purpose, with intention to injure her, to make her a little 
sick, so that no investigation be had of the truth of her comtnu- 
nication — but not with the thought of taking life and it did kill 
her, it would be clearly murder; for the reason that there was 
malicious intent to injure, in giving the poison, and having such 
intent, he is answerable for all the effects of the poison. 



16 

In the case of Mrs. Cutler, Pratt and the church intentionally 
nnd nialiciously destroyed her character and standing in the 
church and society — they with tnalicious intent destroyed her 
peace of mind, her ha[»pinesi?. They thus im])aired her health, 
caused suffering antl sickness, and destroyed her life. As their 
acts were deliberate and malicious, {)ursued without mitigation 
or relaxation while she lived, it is as clearly a case of murder as 
if they had given arsenic to eflect their purposes. Will thecan- 
ilid and honest examine this affair and then mete to Pratt and 
church what ihey merit. 

If Pratt and church are guilty, how stands the other Baptist 
churches in New Hampshire. Some assert they are not implica- 
ted, heing independent. Let us examine this matter and learn 
how they stand. 

1st. The relation of one church to another. It is injportant 
lo understand this relation. When the Baptist church at Nash- 
ua was constituted, some one in behalf of thf neighboring Baf)- 
list churches gave the right hand of fellovvshif), pledging the fel- 
lowshi|), countenance and support of the Baptist ctiurches so 
longasthey (the Nashua church) demeaned themselves in accor- 
dance with the gospel principles as understood and practised hy 
the Baptist churches, at the same time pledging to admonish, to 
rebuke, and withdraw the hand of fellovvshif), aid and counte- 
nance when the Nashua Baptist church deviates from the Bap- 
tist j)latforni, in doctrine, faith or practice. 

When the Nashua Bnptist church was admitted into the Mil- 
ford Baptist Associntion, a sinjihir pledge was given by the Mod- 
erator of the Association in the giving of the right hand of fel- 
lowship. When D. D. Pratt was ordained the right hand of 
fellowship was given by one of the ordaining council in behalf 
of the churches represented by delegates in the council. At 
this time a solemji pledge was given to rebuke, admonish, and 
to withdraw the hand of fellowship, aid and countenance when- 
ever he (Pratt) should depart from the path of rectitude. Here 
we see a three-fold pledge has been given and made binding by 
the parlies, calling men, angels, and Jehovah to witness the sol- 
emn obligation not to countenance or to continue to fellowship 
the Nashua church or D. D. Pratt in intentional sin and iniquity 
of any kind. I challenge any one to controvert these positions. 
The records of your churches and your association show these 
things to be so. In addition to the above, we find an article in 
the Constitution of the Baptist association, which reads as fol- 
lows, to wit: "although as an associated body we utterly dis- 
claim all power over the churches, so far as it respects the inter- 
ference with their independence and discipline, yet we deem it 
our privilege to judge for ourselves of the propriety of continu- 
ing any church in our connexion which to us shall ajjpear heter- 
odox in principle or irregular in i)ractice. In order however 
that we may not dissolve connexion without sufficient reason it 
is proposed that when a complaint is made by any two mem- 



17 



BKtcfilh^n.T^'""" "^^ ''^^" --"-' l-y "- New Ipswich 

M ' r. ,^''T^'^'-"^".' "« «^l'«''^te churches, to gran redreL o 

bodies have refused an investi-alion. The evidence of rhlfl?. 
the facts, the Baptist ministers and Baptbt ch, r^'?hir"'"« 

uL'^ofllTcuUe:' "'■" Suil-y of the oppression and Sue- 

TIW J.f'/f''' '^^^' ^^'"^ valuable to the actincr n!u K 

dgeci riatt and chu.ch to repeat another blow the follow- 



18 



inff^4th of April. The refusal of the Baptist ministers and j 

c" urches to investigate this matter encouraged and sustained J 
P atandchurchinfollowingMrs. Cutter to Dover, and there ^ 
P,..,sh her character. Had Calvin Averill and Wm. Wallace, ^ 
instea of g^^^^^^^^^^ Johnson after that he had gone to bed 

a"fdtermg^JohSson and wife things to slander Cutter and wife 
which Averill has since acknowledged to be false, spent half the 
tTme in getting a fair investigation, Mrs. Cutter had not been de- 

^^ Had'ihe Rev. Mark Carpenter refused to make false state- 
ments in defence of Pratt, which were proved to be false by 
Pnut's handwriting at Ja.nes Johnson's, before Calvin Averill 
andDea Putnam, had he exhibited a christian temper in place 
TA^eZLerous .;,in^.co.ta.ned in ^He fol'owing ex^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
marie by Carpenter to James Johnson, tha wit 1 (Cai penter; 
think as the good old Deacon Pearson does, they have got Cut- 
e down and it is best to keep hi-^' d-v"'",^!-' ST/u^To^ 
not have died the horrid death which she has Had the Com- 
mi tee of the Milford church, consisting of Calvin AvenlU Geo 
Raymond, A. Hutchinson and E. Parsons, and the Mi.fo.d 
churTh granted a hearing to Mrs. Cutter, who was a member of 
the Milford church more than ten years, the inscription of your 

unlerous doings had not been placed "P«" ^^^^P;"^;^^^^^^^^ 
Had Benjamin Kidder and the other members of the Miltoid 
association in 1840 exhibited common humanity and common 
crmtesy had they not driven her from the meeting a c'-ushed 
and wishing victim, when permission was asked to bring her 
rase before the body, her babe would not have been a motherless 
ch Id Had the Re'v'. John Richa..lson and the other clergymen 
assembled at the N. H. B. State Convention in 1841, at North- 
wood adopted and acted from a more moral sentiment than that 
Expressed by the Rev. Mr. Graves of Claremont, to wit: -If 
he' new tha^ brother Pratt was guilty of all the charges against 
him he would not say a word about it for it would hui Piatt s 
influence," (this senfiment was uttered at Worcester, Nov 
3 1842 ) Mrs. Cutter's midnight groans had been renrioved by 
health and not by death. Thil statement of Graves is the se- 
c'e ofthe whole matter. Graves on that day «'\'"'"«^ P*'^" 
was guilty, and so have scores of others that s^^.^^'" ^^^"'7 
HmuledJhave admitted that an investigation would resU,re^^^^^^^ 
Cutter but it would destroy Pratt and church. A blood stainea 
chu ch is dearer to them than human life. The Baptist minis- 
ters and churches in N. H. have given character o P'-^tt and 
church and still do. They refuse to investigate, kno^wmg he 
guilt of this concern. They refuse to say a word agamsi u be- 
cause it will hurt Pratt's influence, as Graves says. They admit 
asdoe Toshua Hutchinson of MilfoiM, that Mrs. Gutter has bee« 
destroyed l.y this movement, and yet they j^^^^J.^^f ^ Ba,^ t 
lowship them. By their watch-care and ^^",^^^'^.p, the Ba^^^^^^^^^ 
ministers and churches have as effectually played the pait ot ac- 



19 

cessaries and murderers in this transaction as did the Knapps at 
Salem. Knn|)p knew the wrong and violence that was being 
done the aged White. The Baptists knew the wrong and vio- 
lence that was inflicted upon Mrs. Cutter. The evidence was 
given them under the solemnity of an oath, to wit: the testimo- 
ny of Pratt, Nathaniel Sleeper, Mary E. Sleeper and Benoni 
Cutter. They knew that her character, her happiness and her 
life were being destroyed, and they would not say a word against 
it for it would hurt Pratt's influence, and they had got the poor 
woman down atid it was best to keep her down. 

If Pratt is guilty of wrong and his church^o is every Baptist 
minister and church in N. H., and so will continue as things now 
remaiti. 1 ask the community to examine this proceeding and 
decide if the ministers and churches are guilty. 

To recaj)itulate. Isr. Do the Baptist ministers and churches 
countenance lying? Sotne may say this charge is a mere asser- 
tion. To such I would say, look at the testimony of Benoni 
Cutter and Lorenzo Dow, upon the report of the church com- 
mittee. Look at the testimony of Nathaniel Sleeper, Mary E. 
Sleeper and D. D. Pratt in the case of Mrs. Cutter, and if lying 
is not directly sanctioned I see not how it can be. Again, Pratt 
testified that ihe votes of the church are not all recorded. He 
testifies to a vote not recorded and to records of church action 
which he says was individual opinion and expression. He tes- 
tifies that these false records were shown in these words, to wit: 
" the records of the doings of the church in the case of Calvin 
Cutter, were shown to ministering brethren." Mark Carpenter 
testifies they were shown to him as the true record of the doings 
of the church. If this does not fix keeping false church reconls 
upon Pratt, and the showing of such false records to sustain him- 
self and church, I know not what will. 

Pratt swears positively that I was condemned without a hear- 
ing. The question to "be settled is — do the Baptist churches 
have and practice upon the principle of condemning unheard.'' 
I answer they do. Upon this |)oint Pratt testifies that "the action 
of the church was not in an unusual manner" in condemning me 
unheard. Mark Carpenter testifies to the rule of the Baptist 
church in these words, to wit: January 3, 1840, " The church 
may receive and act upon the report of their standing committee 
as conclusive evidence of the facts reported, and upon such re- 
port, censure or excommunicate an individual" without further 
hearing. If we can believe Pratt and Carpenter, under oath, it 
is the rule of the Baptists to condemn unheard. Such is the 
practice in many chur. hes. If I had given the same testimony 
to sustain the charge of sprinkling an infant, or communing with 
sprinkled persons it would have led to his being cut off from the 
denomination. * 

Why does not the same testimony carry him out of the denom- 
ination for condemning persons unheard.'' The simple and most 
obvious answer is, that by so doing he has violated no rule of 



20 



tlie Baptist clenorrnnat.on. The rule is, to condemn unheard. 
Eve.7 minister of the Baptist denomination sustains this secret 
lule. They hnd ,t very useful to them. It gives them pow- 
er over the.r members. By this they can keep them hi the 
tiaces By this rule they are protected in Licentiousness. 
rnpmi f^ 'T ^" ^'^ ^^posed, they will excommunicate the 

ember by the secret <r-ag rule. Then they become safe, for the 
biethrenare instructed not to believe an excommunicated per- 
son. Phis in the cry in the case of Mrs. Cutter. This rule 
gives them power over every woman in their church. This 
power ,s m the hands and is wielded by the minister and stand! 
• ng committee. [Seethe testimony of Carpenter.] This "ule 
IS the instrument of torture in the Baptist Inquisition. It is as 
'iW.lT ';';? J°'-^";'"^V"f '•"»?«"is of the Spanish Inquisition . 
Ihi^.uleisvvielded by ihe Baptist ministers, as the Innuisition 
was wielded by the Pope of xHome to crush heretics. M^-s Cut' 
for ;'^ "''"'L^"^ ?"^ murdered by this rule~-and as Pratt says, 
for the "good and peace of the church ." Compare (his rule as 
sworn to by Piatt and Carpenter, with the following from the 
Constitution of N. Hampshire: ''no subject shall be I.e Id t^ an! 
swer for any crime or offence, until the same is fullv ul linlv 
BulKstant,« ly an.l formally described to him, or be cofrlpe led J 
furnish evidence against himself, and eve.-; subiect sh fl Imve a 
right to produce all proofs that may be favo.4ble to hi to 

by himself or his counsel at his election, and no subiect shall he 
arrested, imprisoned, despoiled or deprived of "^'Jopmy o? 
pr.v.lejjes put out of the protection of the law, e.i^led o -^de' 
prived o his life liberty or estate, but by the judgm^^^^^^ of his 
peers or lau' of the land." Now read the Baptist rSle, as sworn 

"a^I::!^"'''''"'''^ '^^°'T ^•^- Livermore Janua'; 3 1840 

A church may receive and act upon the report of the standinc^ 

committee, as conclusive evidence of the facts reporttl and n^ 

Iw'r'M;''''";;' ?'"'"•■' ^'' excommunicate an individua ." P a' t 

Irrv.. l^''^ '^'''^, ^7^ « '"o^ion made that he (Cutter) should 

ursuchnlmT'n'"'!/''' privilege of making his statement. I 
put ^uch motion. The vote was in the negative » A-ain he 

TuaJrwas not"^"'"''^'^ 'T''"' — ^^^ee In tht c^s of 
^utte was not in an unusual manner, and the action of the 

th Coivlh.'V'' '■''"''' "''^V'"^ '" ^'^ ^"--^'^' m^.ner.'' By 
•erre^l heL,^ ?h' ''"7 '"''^" .'^"^^^s his accuser, the charges p.i 

o know 1^^ t ' ^y l'^ ?''^''''' ''"'^ ''^ •« "«^ a'tovved 

sneHk^^h.bf- ?'"'*'<:: ""' '^? ?^^^'«^^^' '^^«'- ^^e evidence, or 

o thi. n r T ?''' ^' 'I ^'^'s-P'-att and Carpenter have sw^orn 

rue T ' N h^' ''\ '^\ ""''^1'^'^' ''^' ^'^^ ^-nomination, if not 

i nled^.er^m. t"'' 'T^' '"'^- ?^*^^''" ^^^"''^'^^^ «^^^^^ excommu- 
"K.ited j,e.M)ns m accordance with it. This you know from tes- 



21 

tiinony given yoji, while you ptill countenance, aid and fel- 
lowship them in so doing. By your church and christian fel- 
lowship with the actors*you do not declare it heterodox in prin- 
ciple, or irregular in practice — you have knowingly perjnilted 
Mrs. Cutter to be murdered by the action of a rule that was your 
duty to have crushed. If it be not the rule of the Baptist church, 
you retain Pratt and Carpenter in your fellowship after having 
committed Perjury. But it is your rule, and proved so as 
above, and from another fact, to wit: yoMr refusal to grant a 
committee of investigation. Since this commeticed, the Rev. 
J. Arvvood obtained an exparte committee of investigation upon 
another subject in the Milford association. How would the Bap- 
tists have been situated-if a committee had examined this matter? 
Thus if the testimony of Pratt is true, the denomination would 
have been compelled to openly and publicly declare that the Bap- 
tists condemn peoi)le unheard, or they would have been com- 
pelled to sustain Mrs. Cutter, putting down Pratt and the Nash- 
ua church. The fortner you have acknowledged would sustain 
the rule to condemn unheard, but it would destroy the Baptist 
churches. The latter would destroy Pratt and the Nashua church. 
No investigation would keep down Cutter and his wife. The 
safety of the secret rule and ministry is obtained at the same time. 
If a judge upon the civil bench should condemn a vile murderer 
unheard, ten shousand bayonets would leap froni their scabl)ards, 
ho would be hurled from his seat and stripped ot the Judicial 
errjpine. Still the ten thousand Baptists in N. H. maintain the 
rule and practice of condemning unhearrl in their churches. To 
sustain this rule they stripped me of some thousand dollars of pro- 
perty, my reputation, my -business. They reduced my wife to 
jjoverty and wretchedness. So poor were we made, that her 
cloak was taken to make mo a coat; the bed upon which she lay 
when sick, from abuse received in church meeting, frotn Pratt 
and Adams, was sold to pay the Baptist Meetinghouse debts. — 
So low were we reduced, that Carpenter, Pratt, Richardson, 
Raymond, Wallace, Averill and others said we had nothing, and 
were not worth tninding. Amidst mitlnight moans and groans, 
she ended her life a victim to the Baptist rule of condemning 
persons unheard.as sworn to by Pratt and Carpenter and sustanied 
i)y ail the Baptist clerjiymen and churches in New Hatni)shire. 
She lies in Milford church yard, witli this inscription upon a 
marble slab at the head of her lowly resting place, to wit: "Car- 
oline H. Cutter — murdered by the Baptist ministry and Baptist 
churches, as follows: Sept. 23, 1833, she was accused of lying 
in church meeting, by the Rev. D. D. Pratt and Deacon Al- 
bert Adams — was condemned by the church unheard. She was 
reduced to poverty by Deacon Wm. Wallace. When an expar- 
te||tf)uncil was asked of the Milford Baptist church, by the ad- 
vice of their committee, George Raymond, Calvin Averill an(fc 
Andrew Hutchinson, ' they voted not to receive any connnuni- 
cation upon the subject.' The Rev. Mark Ca^)cnler said he 



22 

thought as the good old Deacon Pearson said "we have got Cut- 
ter down and it is best to keep him down ." The intentional and 
malicious destruction of her chajracter and ha[)piness, as above 
described, destroyed her life. He'r last words upon the subject 
were ' tell the truth and the iniquity will come out.' '^ 

Notwithstanding, two of the leading members of the Nashua 
Baptist church have ma<le bloody threats that if 1 did not 
stop in this matter ^^ they would close my mouth as they had 
the mouth of my v:ije.^^ Notwithstanding, one of the Milford 
church has recently said that if I did not quit this matter "they 
loould serve me as they had Mrs. Cutler." I appeal to you that 
are fathers, husbands, brothers and sons. I appeal to you that 
are mothers, wives, sisters and daughters, upon this matter. I 
appeal to you as men and women, as' christians, as lovers of 
country and friends of humanity. Will you sustain a ministry 
and a church that sustains a rule to condemn unheard.'' Will 
you sustain a religious denomination wherever the "poor" the 
"lowly" " not worth minding" can be condenmed without a 
hearing. I ask you as democratic republicans, \a hich will you 
countenance and sustain, the Constitution of your State that 
protects every one in their property, character and person, and 
by which no one can be condemned without a full hearing.'' or 
the Baptist ministry and church that destroys property, charac- 
ter and life, that condemns unheard. Your attendance u{)on their 
meetings, your retnaining in their churches, uniting with their 
church, gives countenance and support to the practice and prin- 
ciple of condenjning unheard, as much as it does to the princi- 
ple and practice of immersion, upon a profession of faith . This 
the ministers know and admit. CALVIN CUTTER. 

May 1, 1843. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



014 014 895 7 I 



